Energy costs alone will sink bitcoin longterm leaving only initial investors with any true value. It’s the very definition of a Ponzi scheme due to this unsustainablity.
That’s not what a Ponzi scheme is. In a Ponzi, earlier investors are paid from what newer investors put in. While there have been Ponzi schemes that used Bitcoin or Ethereum or what-the-fuck-ever, they themselves aren’t Ponzis – they’re essentially commodities. They’re stupid, wasteful commodities, but what else is new?
With your definition, stocks and commodities are Ponzi schemes too. It’s clearly nonsense.
And no, before anybody starts getting any ideas, in case it’s not already blindingly obvious I’m not a “crypto fan” by any means. There’s some technologies and ideas there that might be useful in the long run, but 99% of the field is bullshit
Alright so please explain to me how investing into a sinking ship (which by design bitcoin is) on the concept that the sinking will be held off by newer continual investment doesn’t meet the definition? Bitcoin is 100% a Ponzi scheme because left alone there is a /continual and designed/ drain on the value of the “commodity” (this applies to all “proof of work” coins). Stocks don’t necessarily suffer this as the company is technically leveraged against the stock, but bitcoin only has the leverage of current invested value. If you combine this with the fact it’s unsustainable without continual new investment and given a long enough timeline will consume more and more electricity leading to runaway costs I don’t see how you don’t see the brick wall at the end of this tunnel labeled “hope you jumped ship” leaving longterm investors SOL without continual investment.
By your definition, the US dollar is also a ponzi scheme because if all of Gen Z and their children and future generations choose to conduct all their financial transactions in Euro then the US dollar will have no value. This is simply not the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
It is not my definition; feel free to Google it. The actual reality of bitcoins model falls well within that of a Ponzi scheme as the only derived long-term value comes from new investors and the long term model will continuously bleed more resources than sustainable running the network.
The US dollar is differentiated as it’s a secured currency backed by a legitimate business interest (the US government; citizens have no say in it. It does not matter if they wish to use Euros. They are forced to transact via the currency legally and thus it’s value is secured.)
If this is the definition of a ponzi scheme literally every currency could be considered a ponzi scheme. Why is the US dollar worth anything? Because enough people agree it is so if they stop agreeing it becomes worthless pieces of paper, or a ponzi scheme.
The US dollar has backing. It’s the faith and credit of the American government. It’s printed right on the currency. You could argue that bitcoin has this as well in it’s decentralized investment channel, but that’s where I’d then point out the fact that the US dollar does not have a runaway unsustainable cost built in. Bitcoin will always eat itself in energy costs. This will always be the case while the coin remains proof of work, which will also always be the case for a litany of reasons. You are trying to compare them at a small scale, but you need to think about the larger picture if you want to extrapolate out over the likely decades it will take for bitcoin to faulter.
None of that makes your definition of a ponzi scheme any more right. Crypto isn’t a ponzi scheme, it’s just really easy to turn into one just like any other investment.
You’re wrong. An inherently draining investment that has no realized value for early investors aside from people putting money in and that will one day die off by design is a Ponzi scheme. Also you need to understand that I am not speaking about crypto in general, which is concerning you don’t make the distinction, because they’re not all even remotely the same. You’re out of your damn mind if you think you can refer to Etherium or a Stablecoin in the same breath of legitimacy as bitcoin . Do not mistake the two, they’re not the same.
Here you go again assuming just because something is a bad investment it’s a ponzi scheme.
Also you need to understand that I am not speaking about crypto in general, which is concerning you don’t make the distinction, because they’re not all even remotely the same. You’re out of your damn mind if you think you can refer to Etherium or a Stablecoin in the same breath of legitimacy as bitcoin .
This is you missing my point entirely.
Early investment in bitcoin meant you could buy things with bitcoin. Not a ponzi scheme.
It’s actually you missing the point entirely. Just because you can trade your shares in it does not make it a legitimate investment, nor do I believe all investments need generate revenue. Investment is risk and loss is part of that.
Now, since you’re inclined to continue to be deluded, from the Wikipedia definition: “Named after Italian businessman Charles Ponzi, this scheme misleads investors by either falsely suggesting that profits are derived from legitimate business activities (whereas the business activities are non-existent), or by exaggerating the extent and profitability of the legitimate business activities, leveraging new investments to fabricate or supplement these profits”.
Bitcoin is not a currency. It’s design does not allow for it to be one longterm. It has a built in expiration date and cash flow drain with no legitimate business activity that generates value aside from new investors. The only way one generates value from bitcoin is new investors. The only way your coin is worth more money is new investors. That is what makes it a Ponzi scheme. Just because you can trade shares of your Ponzi scheme to others for their money does not make it an investment.
Energy costs will not sink bitcoin. I don’t want to even begin to imagine where you got that from. And if it did, there would be no value for anybody. That’s but a ponzi then, is it?
Energy costs will absolutely sink the coin. How do you propose it stay afloat when the continual energy costs of maintaining the network is designed to skyrocket continually over time? New investment?.. Some other magic mechanism to break the laws of physics and generate free power?..
There is nothing that says energy costs would skyrocket. It’s a strawman used by the most ill-informed.
If you want I can go into it, but if you are just looking for an argument and won’t consider what I write, then I will just leave and you can think what you want.
What are you smoking?.. Can I get some?
Bitcoin is a proof of work coin, this relies on computers being able to solve an increasingly complex and increasingly difficult to solve mathematical equation to approve transactions on the bitcoin network. This takes up egregious amounts of electricity that grows proportionately to the ledger size. As the ledger grows more compute will be needed and given bitcoin decentralized ledger plus proof of work (instead of say, proof of stake or another decentralized confirmation scheme) it will always by design consume more and more electricity. Electricity is not free. Compute is not free. Even if a clean method of generating fusion power was discovered tomorrow bitcoin would be unsustainable long term BY DESIGN. It’s dead on the vine. It’s a Ponzi scheme set in the motion of years. It consumes the electrical equivalent higher than most countries and has insane, unsustainable network costs, and you can’t just wrap the damn thing because wrapped coins are worthless without the original transaction network running.
What you wrote is factually incorrect.
You don’t know what you are taking about.
And you say I’m smoking something lol? Your emotions have taken hold of any reason and you attack me with some childish insults? You are embarrassing.
Compute power doesn’t increase with the size of the ledger, not enough to matter, but with the amount of miners doing the computing and amount of transactions needing to be confirmed. And none of those need to increase, especially since there are L2 options available and because normal bitcoin transactions are not meant to have the highest number of transactions.
Your claim is ludicrous, especially since miners would not be incentivised to burn some infinite amount of electricity, because they would need to pay for it and bitcoin mining rewards are halved every so many blocks.
Nothing I’ve said is factually incorrect. It is all based in reality and although some nuance is lost as I’m not going to dedicate research paper level time to trying to get you to come to your senses, the overall ideas are backed by factual information.
I’m not attacking you, I’m engaging in a meaningless argument with a meaningless person to kill time. As far as the insults go, I believe the first was hurled from you referring to me sounding like a derogatory term? Maybe get yourself checked if you can’t take what you dish Mr mad bro. 😂
I’m not sure once again what you’re smoking but damn I want some. The cognitive disconnect is insane. You can feel free to look up whatever you’d like to provide alternative viewpoints in this regard but you cannot change the simple reality that bitcoin will eat it’s own tail in runaway compute and electricity costs; it already has. Layering on more efficient transactional networks won’t change that. You can bundle transactions and go through L2, hell you can wrap the coin and go through an entire other network, but the underlying network will die to its runaway unsustainability the moment new user growth ceases to outpace costs. It’s a mall cafeteria inside a Ponzi castle built on Ponzi sand. The aroma of legitimatcy and desire disguising tax write offs and fraudulent accounting.
Oh and yeah, they wouldn’t burn an infinite amount would they. They’d just… Stop mining it as the costs would be too high for any reasonable person to want to pay transact fees on the network. That’s certainly different than the coin dying.
If I don’t know what I’m talking about, at least I know as much as you. 😂🤷♂️
I have no dog in this game, but I don’t see how buttcoin is a Ponzi scheme. If I’d compare it to anything it’s probably be tulips.
Energy costs alone will sink bitcoin longterm leaving only initial investors with any true value. It’s the very definition of a Ponzi scheme due to this unsustainablity.
That’s not what a Ponzi scheme is. In a Ponzi, earlier investors are paid from what newer investors put in. While there have been Ponzi schemes that used Bitcoin or Ethereum or what-the-fuck-ever, they themselves aren’t Ponzis – they’re essentially commodities. They’re stupid, wasteful commodities, but what else is new?
With your definition, stocks and commodities are Ponzi schemes too. It’s clearly nonsense.
And no, before anybody starts getting any ideas, in case it’s not already blindingly obvious I’m not a “crypto fan” by any means. There’s some technologies and ideas there that might be useful in the long run, but 99% of the field is bullshit
Alright so please explain to me how investing into a sinking ship (which by design bitcoin is) on the concept that the sinking will be held off by newer continual investment doesn’t meet the definition? Bitcoin is 100% a Ponzi scheme because left alone there is a /continual and designed/ drain on the value of the “commodity” (this applies to all “proof of work” coins). Stocks don’t necessarily suffer this as the company is technically leveraged against the stock, but bitcoin only has the leverage of current invested value. If you combine this with the fact it’s unsustainable without continual new investment and given a long enough timeline will consume more and more electricity leading to runaway costs I don’t see how you don’t see the brick wall at the end of this tunnel labeled “hope you jumped ship” leaving longterm investors SOL without continual investment.
By your definition, the US dollar is also a ponzi scheme because if all of Gen Z and their children and future generations choose to conduct all their financial transactions in Euro then the US dollar will have no value. This is simply not the definition of a Ponzi scheme.
It is not my definition; feel free to Google it. The actual reality of bitcoins model falls well within that of a Ponzi scheme as the only derived long-term value comes from new investors and the long term model will continuously bleed more resources than sustainable running the network.
The US dollar is differentiated as it’s a secured currency backed by a legitimate business interest (the US government; citizens have no say in it. It does not matter if they wish to use Euros. They are forced to transact via the currency legally and thus it’s value is secured.)
If this is the definition of a ponzi scheme literally every currency could be considered a ponzi scheme. Why is the US dollar worth anything? Because enough people agree it is so if they stop agreeing it becomes worthless pieces of paper, or a ponzi scheme.
The US dollar has backing. It’s the faith and credit of the American government. It’s printed right on the currency. You could argue that bitcoin has this as well in it’s decentralized investment channel, but that’s where I’d then point out the fact that the US dollar does not have a runaway unsustainable cost built in. Bitcoin will always eat itself in energy costs. This will always be the case while the coin remains proof of work, which will also always be the case for a litany of reasons. You are trying to compare them at a small scale, but you need to think about the larger picture if you want to extrapolate out over the likely decades it will take for bitcoin to faulter.
None of that makes your definition of a ponzi scheme any more right. Crypto isn’t a ponzi scheme, it’s just really easy to turn into one just like any other investment.
You’re wrong. An inherently draining investment that has no realized value for early investors aside from people putting money in and that will one day die off by design is a Ponzi scheme. Also you need to understand that I am not speaking about crypto in general, which is concerning you don’t make the distinction, because they’re not all even remotely the same. You’re out of your damn mind if you think you can refer to Etherium or a Stablecoin in the same breath of legitimacy as bitcoin . Do not mistake the two, they’re not the same.
Here you go again assuming just because something is a bad investment it’s a ponzi scheme.
This is you missing my point entirely.
Early investment in bitcoin meant you could buy things with bitcoin. Not a ponzi scheme.
It’s actually you missing the point entirely. Just because you can trade your shares in it does not make it a legitimate investment, nor do I believe all investments need generate revenue. Investment is risk and loss is part of that.
Now, since you’re inclined to continue to be deluded, from the Wikipedia definition: “Named after Italian businessman Charles Ponzi, this scheme misleads investors by either falsely suggesting that profits are derived from legitimate business activities (whereas the business activities are non-existent), or by exaggerating the extent and profitability of the legitimate business activities, leveraging new investments to fabricate or supplement these profits”.
Bitcoin is not a currency. It’s design does not allow for it to be one longterm. It has a built in expiration date and cash flow drain with no legitimate business activity that generates value aside from new investors. The only way one generates value from bitcoin is new investors. The only way your coin is worth more money is new investors. That is what makes it a Ponzi scheme. Just because you can trade shares of your Ponzi scheme to others for their money does not make it an investment.
Energy costs will not sink bitcoin. I don’t want to even begin to imagine where you got that from. And if it did, there would be no value for anybody. That’s but a ponzi then, is it?
Energy costs will absolutely sink the coin. How do you propose it stay afloat when the continual energy costs of maintaining the network is designed to skyrocket continually over time? New investment?.. Some other magic mechanism to break the laws of physics and generate free power?..
There is nothing that says energy costs would skyrocket. It’s a strawman used by the most ill-informed. If you want I can go into it, but if you are just looking for an argument and won’t consider what I write, then I will just leave and you can think what you want.
What are you smoking?.. Can I get some? Bitcoin is a proof of work coin, this relies on computers being able to solve an increasingly complex and increasingly difficult to solve mathematical equation to approve transactions on the bitcoin network. This takes up egregious amounts of electricity that grows proportionately to the ledger size. As the ledger grows more compute will be needed and given bitcoin decentralized ledger plus proof of work (instead of say, proof of stake or another decentralized confirmation scheme) it will always by design consume more and more electricity. Electricity is not free. Compute is not free. Even if a clean method of generating fusion power was discovered tomorrow bitcoin would be unsustainable long term BY DESIGN. It’s dead on the vine. It’s a Ponzi scheme set in the motion of years. It consumes the electrical equivalent higher than most countries and has insane, unsustainable network costs, and you can’t just wrap the damn thing because wrapped coins are worthless without the original transaction network running.
What you wrote is factually incorrect. You don’t know what you are taking about.
And you say I’m smoking something lol? Your emotions have taken hold of any reason and you attack me with some childish insults? You are embarrassing.
Compute power doesn’t increase with the size of the ledger, not enough to matter, but with the amount of miners doing the computing and amount of transactions needing to be confirmed. And none of those need to increase, especially since there are L2 options available and because normal bitcoin transactions are not meant to have the highest number of transactions.
Your claim is ludicrous, especially since miners would not be incentivised to burn some infinite amount of electricity, because they would need to pay for it and bitcoin mining rewards are halved every so many blocks.
You. Don’t. Know. What. You. Are. Taking. About.
Please. Stop.
Nothing I’ve said is factually incorrect. It is all based in reality and although some nuance is lost as I’m not going to dedicate research paper level time to trying to get you to come to your senses, the overall ideas are backed by factual information.
I’m not attacking you, I’m engaging in a meaningless argument with a meaningless person to kill time. As far as the insults go, I believe the first was hurled from you referring to me sounding like a derogatory term? Maybe get yourself checked if you can’t take what you dish Mr mad bro. 😂
I’m not sure once again what you’re smoking but damn I want some. The cognitive disconnect is insane. You can feel free to look up whatever you’d like to provide alternative viewpoints in this regard but you cannot change the simple reality that bitcoin will eat it’s own tail in runaway compute and electricity costs; it already has. Layering on more efficient transactional networks won’t change that. You can bundle transactions and go through L2, hell you can wrap the coin and go through an entire other network, but the underlying network will die to its runaway unsustainability the moment new user growth ceases to outpace costs. It’s a mall cafeteria inside a Ponzi castle built on Ponzi sand. The aroma of legitimatcy and desire disguising tax write offs and fraudulent accounting.
Oh and yeah, they wouldn’t burn an infinite amount would they. They’d just… Stop mining it as the costs would be too high for any reasonable person to want to pay transact fees on the network. That’s certainly different than the coin dying.
If I don’t know what I’m talking about, at least I know as much as you. 😂🤷♂️
What you said is literally wrong, incorrect, false. Don’t believe me, read it somewhere else.
Bye.